I specifically said I wasn't referring to you, but if you want to raise your hand, go ahead. We can discuss this as if you are part of that group of writers, if you'd like to do so.
You compiled a lot of stats, but it doesn't address anything I said. I never questioned whether players such as Crosby or McDavid are great players, so to cite them towards my point doesn't make any sense. What I am saying is that not everyone can be a star, and the best player pre-draft in many years. We hear this same rhetoric every single year, and if you actually took it all at face value, these statements are warring.
Actually, it completely addresses your idea that pre-draft "rhetoric" is hype over substance. You're dismissing concrete evidence that over 80 percent of the first forwards drafted between 1987 and 2016 actually validated pre-draft "rhetoric" -- that Player X was assessed to have the potential to be a star in the league and actually became a star in the league. Although several were outperformed by picks thereafter, not one of those 1st overall picks outside of three busts -- Daigle, Stefan, and Yakupov; and RNH to an extent -- failed to live up to pre-draft expectations.
We can take last year, for example. Hughes was supposed to be right in line with Matthews and Eichel, some said better. Kakko was right in line with Laine, Barkov, some said better. Byram was right in line with the best non-Dahlin defensemen in the last five years, some said the best. Lafreniere is right in line with the best wingers drafted in the last 10 years, some will say the best. Byfield is right in line with the best centers drafted since McDavid. Next year, Raty will be right in line with the best Finnish players, as well as some more grand proclamations when it's figured out who the other best players in the draft are.
Take the validity or lack thereof of any of those things out of the equation. That doesn't even matter. Not all of the 100 grand proclamations can be true. Where is the line drawn? Where do you say that while you are a fan of the player, you don't think they are the next great center or RHD or Swede or Canadian? At some point, these grand proclamations are meaningless if everyone is the next best player. It dilutes this discussion when every year there are at least a few players who fit into these categories. And when you look back, it obviously can't be true because there can't be enough spots in all these categories for all these things to be true.
See above. These "grand proclamations" are not only justified based off pre-draft resumes, but also are operating at an 80% success rate. You fail to realize that power vacuums occur every year -- established stars age and are replaced. That's why Jarome Iginla clubbed the NHL from 2002-2011, and in that same period the Sedins didn't start dominating until what? 2010? The names that dominate the league actually get old, and guess who usually replaces them? Those top draft picks who are 5-7 years younger before reaching their peak or prime.
Some of these guys just aren't deserving of these proclamations pre-draft, despite being worthy of their draft slots in their draft, yet the draft industry can't help itself. It feeds business. You are admitting yourself that it helps your business to use these grand proclamations rather than more realistic analysis that some drafts are weaker than others in certain areas, and acknowledging that you can't have 10 great drafts in a row or 10 years in a row where all of the top players in a draft are great and at least 45 of them are going to score 40 goals.
This is irresponsible. Jack Hughes smashed scoring records. Kakko smashed scoring records. Byram smashed scoring records. It would be worse -- and a massive disservice to the prospect and their programs -- if we ignored that and marginalized their accomplishments because the smallest of minorities think pre-draft hype is annoying. And it's funny you mention "realistic analysis", because you continuously fail to provide any.
If everything is great, nothing is great. People need to be able to draw a line. And if you draw a line, you don't hate the player that is right under the line. Those who refuse to draw the line are always the first ones to complain about the analysis of someone who does draw a line. I have a lot more respect for those that draw a line (regardless if I agree with their opinion) and are a little more realistic about how these things work than those who start with the premise that everything and everyone is great, and you are a hater if you don't oversaturate all analysis with every grand proclamation possible and cover every possible base that you can about every player having a chance to be a star.
This "draw the line" stuff is funny, because we actually do "draw a line". They're called rankings, and AFAIK, we all provide detailed and lengthy analysis that includes (but not limited to) -- live viewings, film sessions, interviews, statistical studies, etc.
The majority of star talent in hockey comes from the top of the draft -- that cannot be denied. I don't know why you have such a difficult time accepting this.
You also need to clarify some things. In one thread you said Lafreniere has "high-level skill" and "a terrific hockey IQ to put himself in positions to put up points", then later state that "...Lafreniere manages to be really good without being a player who takes over games." and "..not a player who has a style of play that includes dominating games with regularity, no highly elite tools"
I'd like you to answer these questions in order:
1) What is the difference between "high-level skill" and "highly-elite tools" and define each as it pertains to Lafreniere.
2) What is his "style of play" that prevents him from "dominating games with regularity"?
3) Since you used small sample sizes to criticize Hughes, Kakko, and Byram off a small sample size, then what do you make of Lafreniere averaging 2.62 points a game to start his draft year?
4) When do you plan on watching Lafreniere again to confirm/deny your original claim that he doesn't take over games, especially seeing his recent production?
.
